Total Pageviews

Tuesday, 15 September 2015

Non Native Species And Sasquatch Evidence Gathering

Attempting To Gather Scientific Evidence For Species Existence Using Non-Lethal Methodology.

This is
from a draft paper I put together in 2009. It was to be part of a
paper I had hoped to present to the Eastern Cougar Foundation.
Comments are welcome.

Above: Melanistic puma.

Draft

Attempting
To Gather Scientific Evidence For Species

Existence
Using

Non-Lethal
Methodology.

TERRY
HOOPER-SCHARF

Exotic Animals Register [EAR]

United Kingdom

Introduction

From a very early age I learnt “science demands proof” and
that, zoologically speaking, ”the body of evidence” is just that.A corpse.Without a corpse to dissect and study we are told that science cannot
accept anything as existing.

The Carthaginian, Hanno, encountered a Lowland gorilla [Gorilla g. gorilla] briefly but that was
two thousand years ago.Andrew Battle, in
the late 16th century had encountered Lowland Gorillas and his
account of this, as well as encounters with other forms of African wildlife
were presented in a book in 1614.

Skulls, parts of skeletons and even skins were brought back
to Europe, the UK
in particular, but those travellers presenting this evidence were often laughed
out of scientific places of learning.

Even though gorillas had been exhibited in travelling
menageries –we know that in 1855,Wombwell’s travelling menagerie had a gorilla
called “Jenny” on display and there are news reports of gorilla [“an
African wild man of the forest”] coming in by ship in 1800,it was not until
1851 that the existence of the gorilla was scientifically accepted and
catalogued.

In August,1902,Captain von Beringe succeeded in killing two
gorillas but recovered only one body which was sent back to Europe
and classed as Gorilla
gorilla beringei –the Eastern Gorilla.

We have, in the UK, tracks identified by experts specialising in
Felids at zoological gardens and even former African trackers running a deer park here, as being
leopard [Panthera pardus]. Anyone picking up a field guide to tracks or
even accessing the internet today can identify such tracks. There have been hairs recovered by police
after “big cat” incidents that have been DNA tested by two reputable laboratories
and the results were Panthera pardus.

There are also tracks and hairs
consistent with the Puma [Puma concolor]
and lynx species [Lynx lynx]. There are many very credible witnesses who
have seen cats at close proximity [0-20m] and some of these were trained
naturalists and one senior lecturer in zoology at a university who was also an
expert wildlife consultant. It is fair
to say that there is also good photographic and video footage of non-native
species.

We also have photographic records
of large cat [puma] attack on horses and a large number of photographs of
sheep, deer and other prey animals bearing all the signs of typical large cat
kills. Recordings of puma calls even.

Despite this, some experts say
they still want a body as “proof” –a totally pointless exercise unless it is
out of curiosity [Red Paper: Felids -unpublish]

It should be unacceptable that, in the 21st
century, science requires a corpse as evidence that a particular animal exists.We can, with non-injuring ‘traps’ and other
means, not to mention remote trail-camera traps, gain enough evidence that a
species exists but killing an animal might have dire consequences.What if a Felid or other animal killed is a
female and has young.Without the mother
to provide food those young will die.And without maternal training to give older cubs hunting skills they
will need, those young can become “messy killers”.

And what if the animal killed is, say, the last male or
female of the species,or at least last of a breeding pair?The species is lost.

In the 1970s,there was a great debate, often heated, amongst
Hominologists, those looking for the Sasquatch/Bigfoot in the USA and Canada
and Almasty in the former USSR.Leading US researcher John Green, along
with Grover Krantz, put forward the same old argument “science needs a corpse
as proof –so shoot a Bigfoot”.

Dmitri Bayanov, of theDarwin Museum, Moscow, argued that, if the hominid was a relic primitive man population then shooting one would be
homicide and at the time I came out on Mr. Bayanov’s side based on our not
knowing how many such hominids there might be, if any, and if the last one of a
breeding pair was killed the science might be happy but the species was doomed.

But in the 1970s we never had DNA testing or the other scientific
and technical aids that we have today.

What I am putting forward in this paper are ways to gain
evidence that science can study and base conclusions on without a body.The methodology can be applied to most
animals whether felid, canid or hominid.It is based on past experience as a naturalist as well as other training
that cannot be specified.

It is in fact an intelligence gathering methodology in which
physical traces of a species as well as other visual data are gathered and
analysed.This information should then
help decide the basis of how to proceed next.

And we must never forget the "Absence of Evidence" often quoted by what
are called the "skeptics". Irving Copi the American philosopher,
logician, and university textbook author. wrote:

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had
occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In
such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of
its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

This is something that Carl Sagan once wrote about. The argument from
ignorance for "absence of
evidence" isn't necessarily fallacious. For instance, that a new,
potentially
life saving drug poses no long term health risk unless proven otherwise.
It might be argued that were such an argument to rely imprudently on
the lack of
research to promote such a conclusion, it would be considered an
informal fallacy-
whereas the former can be a persuasive way to shift the burden of proof
in an
argument or debate.

To put it in another way: jurors at a trial might be told by the prosecution that a defendant had
been heard to say in a heated argument "I will kill you!" Ten days
later the subject of this outburst was fond dead. Therefore the
defendant did it. The defendant is known to have had a violent past.
The defence would then claim "where is the proof?"

I was once astonished when Sagan, again, stated that there is no
evidence that extraterrestrials (in "UFOs") are visiting the Earth -but there is no evidence that extraterrestrials (in "UFO") are not visiting the Earth.

A scientist at whatever level -university big name down to the lowly
naturalist- must always keep this in mind in whatever field they are
involved in.

Feedback was quite negative and every and any excuse was offered because it was quite clear that whom ever owned the cameras wanted to be listed as the owner of evidence gathered by camera and to have the sole right to sell or use the footage/images without any consultation. The very idea of a Field Study Team was laughable.

In fact, many were still citing World War One and World War Two as vital points in the release of non native cats into the UK. Many citing unidentified USAF units as having "Big Cat" mascots (the Puma is not a big cat but of the medium sized cat family) that they dumped in England at the end of the wars.

Sadly, all this information they gleaned from one main source -myself and the old Exotic Animals Register (EAR) Bulletin. By the late 1990s research had shown that there were no traceable USAF units with big cat mascots in the UK and I proved, along with the assistance of a university, that various cats, canids (Jackals, wolves etc) were being released with public knowledge for hunting as far back as the 18th century and well into the early 20th century. "Cribbing" other peoples research means you never know how old the info is that you've stolen!

But back to the main subject at hand.

In 2011 I posted the following as it seemed as relevant to Sasquatch as it did to UK non native cats.

On Gathering Hard Evidence Of Sasquatch

Wild living creatures are not going to be fooled by some hide or even
people using "scent hide" sprays. The 'charge' seems almost
similar to some Sasquatch approaches to tents -they know someone is inside and
it might well just be a "brushing against the tent" to us but to Sasquatch
it could mean "Hey -I'm out here. My area."

If we accept that Sasquatch exists
then we have to accept that it has spent many thousands of years adapting to
its environment and being able to know when something is "off" in its
habitat. We have stories of bow-hunters covered from head to toe with
camouflage in elevated seats that Sasquatch approach and even sniff out. There
are even cases of Sasquatch turning to look at 'hidden' hunters.

I think those looking for
Sasquatch need to change their mindsets. Do not hide your
scent. Let any Sasquatch become familiar with it and take it from there.

If camping in a known Sasquatch
area and if it is believed one is active at the time then a trail cam or two
could be set up around the camp. Putting out bait such as fish, meat or
fruit is probably not a good idea if you are in a flimsy tent and in bear
country. Note also that bears seem attracted to the petroleum in the plastic
casing and have been known to smash trail-cams by tooth and claw. This is
rather like bears being attracted to the formaldehyde in refrigerators because
it smells ant-nest like.

In a cabin somewhere it might
work. For one thing a cabin would be
fairly secure from bear attack and, in the past, have been fairly good protection
in what have been called Sasquatch ‘attacks’.
These attacks may be the Sasquatch asserting its territory and making it
clear that it owns this particular area.

Snellgrove Lake
and the cabin located there seems to be one such case. Stone throwing, pounding on the cabin
exterior and even, when no one is there, breaking in and trashing the interior.
This raises several possible avenues for investigation and research.

Firstly, of course, there is the
idea of hiring the cabin for a year and record and monitor any possible
Sasquatch activity. A good plan of
action for a year would be needed, though it should be adaptable.

Secondly, there is evidence
gathering with no cabin base but outside of fishing season so that humans
cannot mess evidence up. In 2002 I was
asked by police wildlife crimes officers to draw up some guidelines on
gathering evidence of large, non-native cats.
The following is based on these guidelines and though it refers to large
cats it can be applied to
Sasquatch.
For over thirty years, since the sightings
of puma (Puma concolor) in the Scottish Highlands
and also Wales
which first got me involved in acting as a Police Advisor on exotic animals, there
has been a problem regarding collecting evidence.
Firstly, there are many people who
set themselves up as “Big cat investigators”.
Most of these people do not even have the basic knowledge of a
naturalist let alone the knowledge required to assess sightings of large
felids. Many cases over the years have
resulted in what has been claimed to be “irrefutable proof –hard evidence” of
what has been termed the “UK Big Cat”.
Newspaper photographs of plaster casts of paw-prints said to have come
from such animals have invariably shown claws and tell-tale features of canid
tracks.

It should be noted that there are
good photographs of casts showing details of large felid tracks.

However, these pieces of “evidence” are
treated as belonging to the alleged investigator. Many such pieces of evidence are unbelievably
destroyed once the person jumps onto another subject –I am aware of two cases
in which good large felid track plaster casts were dumped in waste bins along
with incident reports simply because the person involved had lost interest but
was not going to give his “hard work to someone else”. Also, maps, photographs, plaster casts and
much documentation has been destroyed by the families of investigators after
their deaths as “just hobby junk”.

Since the mid-1990s, many people
have jumped from investigating unidentified flying objects (UFOs) to delving
into the paranormal. When those subjects
prove boring these individuals suddenly find a new interest in “UK Big Cats”
–it tends to get them into the newspapers and even onto local television more
because it is not so fantastical as, say, UFOs.
“Cryptozoology” is the current new craze.

I have spoken to these people
quite often and it is amazing just how little they know and several even noted
that they were looking into why “Big Cats” were not seen in the Winter and had
a theory that they might hibernate!

But even those slightly more
credible individuals were unwilling to supply casts or photographic evidence
pertaining to exotic felids. The same
attitude applied: it was “their” evidence.

There were, up until 1998, some
thirty plaster casts of tracks held by private individuals that were quite
clearly diagnostic of exotic felid ranging from lynx (Lynx sp.), puma (Puma
concolor) and leopard (Panthera
pardus). These have all been clearly shown in press
photographs. Such casts would provide
good, solid evidence of exotic felids but even the offer to buy some of these
casts has been turned down. Others have
vanished along with the no-longer-interested investigators.

Above: nailed board found outside cabin at5 Snellgrove Lake.

Hair
samples have also been shown in photographs, as have alleged scat – shockingly,
mainly held in un-gloved hands and with the holders face close enough to taint
any possible results that might exist.
Other samples shown in plastic bags are often removed to show TV or
press cameras. Some samples held for ten
years or more would be pointless to attempt DNA analysis on.

The reason
why these samples have not been forwarded to a laboratory is purely cost. Fresh samples analysed by two labs pertaining
to a felid sighted in Lincolnshire
did return Panthera pardus DNA but
this has only ever been publicised at a local level. That said, the photograph
of the alleged ‘big cat’ taken on another occasion is of nothing more than a
black domestic cat thus proving why all evidence must be clearly checked
because, despite a very good description of a leopard seen at zero feet (just
over 3 feet/90cms) from the observer the photograph taken was of a black cat
seen from a distance –no one was interested in setting up cameras and leaving
them in situ. So called ‘investigators’ with but also
without permission of the property holders camped out in tents and one police
officer told me “It was like a mini Glastonbury at times –there was even music
from radios!” and, naturally, a reclusive cat is going to be attracted to that!

Photographs
or video footage of felids can tend to suffer from distance between camera and
felid or, more often, suffer from the fact that there is nothing to compare the
size of the cat photographed/filmed to.
A couple of pieces of video footage do contain such items so we know the
cats filmed were large. In one video
clip the cats can be quite clearly seen and there are enough items in the clip
(as well as some recorded on video later) to estimate size accurately –as in the
Jagouarondi footage from Surrey.

Of course
there are photographs of livestock kills that bear all the characteristics of
large felid attacks. In some cases it
has been possible to photographs wounds on horses and ponies (such as “Bianca”
at XXXXXXXXX farm) and measure and match said wounds to large felid
dentition. Many farmers have offered to
keep sheep or other animals killed by what they claim are large cats so that
proper post mortem may be carried out to ascertain the truth. Sadly, cost and transportation of such
animals to a veterinarian willing to carry out this work has been a major
stumbling block.

Work has
also been carried out by a university on dentition marks on carcass bones that
clearly show a large felid was involved.

There has
been enough evidence over more than thirty years to conclusively prove the
existence of specific exotic cat species in the UK.
It is, sadly, of no use after so long and with so many “Big Cat
investigators” involved in in-fighting.

What is
needed is a concerted effort to not only film/photograph exotic felids but to
gather hard evidence that can be studied and from which DNA evidence can be
obtained.

Plan Of Action

Over the years certain areas have
become known large felid “hot spots”.

Certain farms are frequently visited, have
livestock killed by or just passed through by large felids. Farmers and locals have been more than
willing to have investigators keep observation of these areas. The problem is that felids have not just good
hearing and sense of smell but seem able to, via instinct, know when something
is different or that people are nearby.
These animals live and survive on their instincts and are never going to
show themselves out in the open.

We have enough evidence in the
form of reports from observers and enough has been done to establish
geographical territories and note prey animals.
This needs to be backed up by hard evidence. Hard evidence that it might be possible to
gather from known areas frequented by these felid.

MAP 1 shows a rough idea of
‘Corryn Gwall Farm’ which allows us to show how evidence might be gathered

Farms tend to be
somewhat more cluttered than this diagram shows but it does represent a number
of known, regularly frequented farms. It
is necessary to maximise the number of ways in which to gather evidence, as
shown in the next diagram.

A-G indicate locations for camera traps able to take
daytime/night time images. As these are
usually fastened to posts or other objects it is possible to move them should
it seem one particular route is used more often than others. The beauty of these cameras is that their use
is quite flexible.

A is fastened onto a tree looking up a rough
track approaching the farm. This is a
track that other wildlife may use as animals tend to use “game trails” rather
than trudge over or around obstacles in wooded areas. This camera would need to be focussed at a
point where a marker post has been left indicating various heights (30 cms, 60
cms and 90 cms) so that any animal photographed can have its size accurately
assessed.

B would be
focussed on the same track but pointing down the track so that an image of any
animal can be captured as it heads toward the farm. Again, a height gauge post would be placed on
the track.

C is, of course,
dependent upon whether there is a convenient pond from which wildlife might
drink. Damp mud could also provide
spots from which tracks might be cast.
It is always worth considering placing a drinking point if no pond
exists and to make sure the ground around it is always wet. However, this is all dependent upon the
property owner.

D would be
positioned at the front of the house looking up any entrance/approach
road. Large felids have been reported
entering/leaving farm courtyards by the main entrance. It would also show where a felid might be
heading so that a camera trap can be moved to that area.

E camera could
be trained on the pond/water source and any wall leading to it.

F could be
angled to take photographs of anything approaching/getting over a back wall or
fence. There are a large number of
reports in which felids have jumped up onto
a wall and remained there for several seconds to one minute, looking
around.

G This should be
fastened to a tree or post pointed in the direction of any livestock that is
reportedly attacked frequently.

All of these
cameras must have a height gauge post in shot but, as noted, all are flexible
in where they can be placed.

In the diagram a
short hurdle has been placed across the rough track. Something around 50-60 cms in height ought to
suffice. The idea is that deer or other
animals can walk over or get under the hurdle but that a felid moving over it
might leave hair samples behind. There
are a number of ways in which such hair can be caught. The idea of placing a string of barbed wire
across the top is ruled out as there is no wish to injure any animals.

Favoured methods
are:[1] “roughed up” wood that can snag hair, and,[2] double sided tape. Obviously, the obstacle would need to be
checked each morning and any hair collected and placed in a sealed plastic bag.

The double-sided
tape hair snag would also work on a fence or at strategic points along a
wall. Again, this would need checking
each morning. So that there is no question as to where hair has been found it
is important that, before removal, it is photographed in situ. Sterile gloves must be worn and any sample
placed in a sealable plastic bag marked with date/time collected as well as
location taken from.

The same applies
to any unidentified droppings found.
Farmers and others living in the country tend to know what a fox, deer
or badger dropping looks like but it should be a case of “unsure –secure” and a
sample collected and bagged as per hair samples. In addition to this it might be worth placing
a marker where the dropping was found for future reference and to see whether
droppings are deposited there regularly.

The importance of
photographing any trace evidence before bagging cannot be over-emphasised.

When it comes to
tracks the person checking each day or who lives on the property should be
given a guide to tracks of deer, rabbit, badgers, foxes, dogs and felids so that
they can eliminate non-felid.

The idea of a
sand-trap located on the property should be looked at. A 90 cms x 90 cms area covered with 3-4 cms
of sand (or substitute material) might solicit tracks so that it can be
assessed what is visiting the property.

It must be made
perfectly clear that even with all of the above it is not a case of evidence of
any type being obtained within a few days or even weeks. We know that certain felids wander their
territory so even when they return it is no guarantee that evidence will be
obtained. It might take a year but the
chances are improved if the owner of the property has seen the felid or has
noted where it seems to go to/come from as they do seem to be creatures of
habit at times.

The cost of game
trail cameras and DNA analysis are the big drawbacks unless a backer can be
found.

I think that
regular trail-cams can be used but, in the case of Sasquatch, need to be placed
higher up a tree (so bears cannot get to them) and angled. Any number of trail-cams are available but
even though they can take a large number of photographs the batteries will die
and once the card is full that is it –just after that last image is taken
Sasquatch could walk right in front the camera, sit down and peel a grape! So, every week or so the batteries will need
checking and the card replaced. This
adds more human contamination/smell to the area.

I believe that
the best way forward are cameras such as the Raptor Cellular camera system that
will capture a photograph and email it to you via a cellular network upon
motion-activation. The built-in camera
will capture colour photographs during the day and via a no-flash Infra Red
mode at night. All photos are stored on the included UBS Flash Drive and the battery operated
system can last several months in a remote location –I’ve heard of several
adaptions of these devices to solar energy where a solar panel is placed high
in a tree meaning that you can get endless image feed.

With cameras,
hair traps and so on, enough evidence can be gathered to satisfy most
scientific minds without the need to kill – though some claiming to be
“scientists” have stated publicly that “nothing” will convince them and a
couple have stated that even a body “does not mean there is a population.”

There is another
question that needs to be addressed.
Whether to go armed when looking for Sasquatch? We know nothing about these creatures but if
they are similar to gorillas then the chasing/charging at those who encounter
them could just be juvenile status posturing.
Gorillas will try to sort out disputes amongst their group without
violence if they can.

However, we have
seen via the work of Steenburg, et al,
that females have been encountered as well as possible family groups. If Sasquatch have learnt anything from
observing hunters it is that they kill wildlife. Humans thusly equal a possible threat to
young or females. Any creature that can
kill large wild hogs and deer with its bare hands is a potential danger to
humans if encountered in the wrong
situation or if the human involved breaches some territorial taboo.

Remember that
the Sasquatch hunter is going to be out in sometimes mountainous or hilly
forestry making a fast exit impossible. If cornered by a Sasquatch and the
animal does not back off what options are left?
I do not advocate
immediately shooting any Sasquatch because of “false charging” but I do think
that there is some form of protection –after all, Sasquatch seem to have bears
in their territories and if you attract an aggressive bear to you…

The whole point
is, however, to gather as much physical evidence as possible –there is no such
thing as “too much evidence”!

Today we see on TV, Swamp Monsters, Mountain Monsters (along with many paranormal programmes) where it does not take 15 minutes to realise they are faked and for fun -"This program is intended for entertainment purposes only" says it all. But why do former credible TV stations such as Discovery and History offer up so many fake programmes?

The answer is simple. Finding Bigfoot has gone on for many years. They have yet to find Sasquatch and when you find the Bigfoot Research Organisation leader, Matt Moneymaker has had to have harsh words with producers over "dubious practices" you ask "if they did film something would we believe it?"

Ditto Monster Quest -highly sensationalistic with "killer" this and "deadly" that added to "rampaging", "out of control" and "potentially lethal to humans" you get the point. Yes, some good footage of very large -unidentified- squid but that's it.

TV execs want people to watch their programming -its what makes the money. So it's easier to make the faked ones "listen -a disembodied voice!"/ "Was something just thrown?" and even (Mountain Monsters) some of the worst fakery of creatures and so on you can find. Because people can laugh or -sadly- believe because they are seeing something not just a search turning up nothing.

With everything going on at Snellgrove was it really going to be that hard to set up cameras around the cabin often the focus of these visits? You can have solar powered/sat-link up cameras so that you do not have to be there. Or even rent the cabin and set up the cameras for several months. Think about it: a film or TV company might spare a few surveillance or even game trail games added into the mix. A few thousand dollars -but getting footage or still photographs of a genuine Sasquatch would net -appealing to greed here- millions in licensing, exclusives and so on.

But it's cheaper to make fake programmes.

For a good and valid project you need a backer with money and an interest in the subject.